EN BANC

[G.R. No. 188716. June 10, 2013.]

MELINDA L. OCAMPO, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT ,

respondent.

DECISION

PEREZ, J : p

This is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, in relation to Rule 64, of the
Rules of Court assailing Decision No. 2008-017 1 dated 15 February 2008 and
Decision No. 2009-038 2 dated 1 June 2009 of the Commission on Audit (COA)
sustaining Notice of Disallowance (ND) No. 2003-021 dated 3 September 2003
disallowing the payment of retirement gratuity to petitioner Melinda L. Ocampo
(Ocampo) as Board Member and Chairperson, respectively, of the Energy
Regulatory Board (ERB), amounting to P1,449,450.48.

On 1 March 1996, Ocampo retired from the National Electrification

Administration under Commonwealth Act No. 186 3 as amended, by Republic
Act No. 1616, 4 after more than seventeen (17) years of service. Ocampo
availed of the lump sum payment with a net gratuity of P358,917.01.
Three days thereafter, on 4 March 1996, under Letter of Appointment
dated 16 February 1996, Ocampo assumed office as Board Member of the ERB.
On 30 June 1998, upon expiration of her term, Ocampo retired under Executive
Order No. 172, "Creating the Energy Regulatory Board" in relation to Republic
Act No. 1568, "An Act to Provide Life Pension to the Auditor General and the
Chairman or any Member of the Commission on Elections." Ocampo availed of
the five year lump sum benefit and the corresponding monthly pension to be
paid out for the remainder of her life. This first gratuity lump sum payment
based on sixty (60) months or five (5) years advance salary was immediately
received by Ocampo after her retirement. Likewise, Ocampo began to receive
her monthly pension. 5
On 25 August 1998, Ocampo was again appointed, this time as Chairman
of ERB with a term of four (4) years. On 15 August 2001, the ERB was abolished
and replaced by the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) as a consequence of
the enactment of Republic Act No. 9136, the Electric Reform Act of 2001. For
the second time, Ocampo sought retirement under Executive Order No. 172.
Ocampo's claim was endorsed by the then Chairperson of the ERC, Fe C. Barin
(Chairperson Barin), to the Department of Budget and Management (DBM).
Upon release by the DBM of the Special Allotment Release Order (SARO) and
the corresponding Notice of Cash Allocation (NCA), Chairperson Barin approved
the payment thereof to Ocampo.

However, on post-audit of the transaction with Ocampo as payee, State

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Auditor IV, Nelda R. Monterde (Auditor Monterde), issued Notice of Suspension
(NS) No. 2002-002-101 dated 10 July 2002: (1) suspending payment of the
amount of P1,452,613.71 covering Ocampo's second retirement gratuity
computed on a pro-rata basis equivalent to only two years, eleven months, and
twenty days; 6 and (2) requiring submission by the ERC of "legal basis for [the
payment of] retirement gratuity twice under the same law (EO 172)." 7
In a letter dated 23 July 2002, Chairperson Barin responded:
1. The application for retirement and or claims for retirement
benefits of former Chairman Melinda L. Ocampo [were] endorsed
to DBM for its proper disposition together with the pertinent
information or circumstances attendant thereto. Please see the
attached letter of endorsement dated April 2, 2002 and the
matrix of information on Chairman Ocampo's appointment and
tenure in office. This was received by DBM on April 5, 2002.

2. In its letter dated April 24, 2002, the Department of Budget and
Management (DBM) issued the Special Allotment Release Order
(SARO) and the corresponding Notice of Cash Allocation (NCA) to
cover the payment of Chairman Ocampo's second gratuity
benefits.

3. Under the above-mentioned circumstances there was no more

cogent reason nor basis for this Office to defer the release to
Chairman Ocampo of the amount corresponding to the DBM
approved gratuity benefits, especially considering the follow-up
efforts by the beneficiaries. To do otherwise could expose the
undersigned to charges of unreasonable delayed action. 8

On 28 October 2002, Ocampo likewise wrote Auditor Monterde asking for

the lifting of NS No. 2002-002-101 dated 10 July 2002 and asseverating her
entitlement to the second retirement gratuity:
1. That the basic law (E.O. 172, as amended) provides no
prohibition to receive second retirement gratuity;

2. That I retired under different positions, first as Board Member

and second as Chairman of the Energy Regulatory Board;

3. Retirement laws are liberally construed in favor of the employee

because the level of retirement compensation is below the cost of
living requirements of a retiree. A grateful nation owes the
retiree at the very least a liberal interpretation. 9

Acting on Chairperson Barin's request for the lifting of NS No. 2002-001-

101 dated 10 July 2002, the Legal and Adjudication Office-National (LAO-N) of
the COA issued LAO-N-2003-132 dated 12 June 2003 denying the request:
Of pertinence is the last paragraph of Section 1 of EO 172,
quoted hereunder, thus:
The Chairman and the Members of the Board, upon completion
of their terms or upon becoming eligible for retirement
under existing laws shall be entitled to the same retirement
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 benefits and privileges provided for the Chairman and
Members of the Commission on Elections.
The retirement benefits of the Members of the Commission on
Elections is found in RA 3595, amending RA 1568. Section 1 thereof
states:

Section 1.When the Auditor General or the [Chairman] or any

Member of the Commission on Elections retires from the service
for having completed his term [of office] . . ., he or his heirs shall
be paid in lump sum his salary for one year, not exceeding
five years, for every year of service based upon the last
annual salary that he was receiving at the time of
retirement, . . .; And, provided, further, That he shall receive an
annuity payable monthly during the residue of his natural
life equivalent to the amount of monthly salary that he
was receiving on the date of retirement, incapacity or
resignation. (Emphasis theirs).

The above provision of law is integral to the matter on hand since

RA 1568 merely extends to the Auditor General and the Chairman or
any Member of the Commission on Elections the retirement benefits
granted under RA 910. EO 172, on the other hand, explicitly provides
that the Chairman and Members of the Board shall be entitled to the
same retirement benefits given to the Chairman and Members of the
COMELEC. Having claimed retirement benefits under EO 172 twice, . . .
Ms. Ocampo, therefore, would in all certainty be receiving double
pension for the remainder of [her life].

The above-situation is predictable considering that under

Paragraph 2 of Section 1 of EO 172, a person may be appointed to the
Board for a minimum of two terms, to wit: "No person may be
appointed to serve more than two (2) successive terms in the Board." It
follows then that upon meeting the condition of completion of terms or
eligibility for retirement each time, the concerned official would apply
for retirement benefits, as a matter of course. While this could have
been the scenario, it bears emphasizing that EO 172, however, does
not have a parallel provision that would allow a Board Member to claim
the full benefits of the law for as long as the number of term [of] office
of such official would allow. The most practical solution that would not
run counter to the prohibition against double pension is to deduct the
amount of lump sum and monthly pensions already received on the
first retirement under EO 172 from the gratuity claimed on the second
retirement under the same law. While there is no hard and fast rule
requiring such deduction, for reasons of equity however, it would be
proper and logical that said benefits should nevertheless be deducted
from the retirement pay to be received by the employee concerned. . .
..

xxx xxx xxx

EO 172 sets forth the condition when the Chairman and the Members
of the Board of the ERB shall be entitled to retirement benefits
provided under RA 3595. For clarity, the condition is "upon
completion of their terms or upon becoming eligible for retirement
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 under existing laws." A quick review of the circumstances herein
obtaining would show that . . . Ms. Ocampo had met such condition
when [her] term [was] completed upon the abolition of ERB. As then
ERB Chairman, [she was] originally appointed to a term of four years
which was however shortened to less than three years. . . . Of equal
importance is the fact that [she was] also eligible for retirement
under existing laws. Records bear that . . . Ms. Ocampo had
previously retired on March 3, 1996.
Section 1 of RA 3595 is clear as to the extent of the gratuity:
lump sum of salary for one year, not exceeding five years, for every
year of service plus the life pension. In the attached pertinent
documents, it is shown that [Ocampo was] granted retirement gratuity
in the amount of . . . P1,472,155.43, . . . computed as follows:

xxx xxx xxx

Highest Monthly Salary (Per NOSA) x No. of Gratuity Months =
Gratuity Pay
P41,275.00 x 35.667 = [P]1,472,155.43
As already mentioned, [she is] also entitled to an annuity payable
monthly during the residue of [her] natural [life]. The payment of
pension starts after the expiration of the five year period as provided
for under Section 3 of RA 910, the retirement law of the Members of
the Judiciary, thus:

Section 3. Upon retirement a Justice of the Supreme

Court or of the Court of Appeals shall be automatically
entitled to a lump sum payment of the monthly salary
that said Justice was receiving at the time of his
retirement for five years, and thereafter upon survival
after the expiration of this period of five years, to
a further annuity payable monthly during the
residue of his natural life equivalent to the amount of
the monthly salary he was receiving on the date of his
retirement. (Emphasis theirs).
In our jurisdiction, the legal precept is against double pension.
The rule in construing or applying pension and gratuity laws is that, in
the absence of express provision to the contrary, they will be so
interpreted as to prevent any person from receiving double
compensation . . . . There must be a provision, clear and unequivocal,
to justify a double pension. . . . It is therefore, incumbent upon . . . Ms.
Ocampo to show that they are exempt from this general rule.
The provision of second paragraph of Section 8 of Article IX-B of
the Constitution which states "Pensions or gratuities shall not be
considered as additional, double, or indirect compensation[,]" may not
be invoked. This provision simply means that a retiree receiving
pension or gratuity can continue to receive such pension or gratuity
even if he accepts another government position to which compensation
is attached . . . .
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the herein request for lifting
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 of NS. No. 2002-001-101 (2002) is hereby DENIED. 10

On motion for reconsideration of Ocampo, the COA LAO-N issued ND No.

2003-021 dated 3 September 2003 affirming NS No. 2002-001-101 disallowing
Ocampo's receipt of a second retirement gratuity under Executive Order No.
172.
On appeal, COA, in Decision No. 2008-017 dated 15 February 2008,
partially affirmed ND No. 2003-021 and allowed Ocampo's receipt of a pro-rated
retirement gratuity based on her salary as Chairperson of the ERB:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Commission affirms in
part the disallowance, under ND No. 2003-021 dated September 03,
2003, and rules that [Ocampo] is entitled to a pro-rata retirement
gratuity, conformably to her years in service as Chairman of ERB which
is, two years, eleven months and twenty days. In accordance with the
computation prepared by the Office of the Supervising Auditor, Energy
Regulatory Board hereto attached as Annex A and made an integral
part hereof, of the total amount of P4,138,086.71, inclusive of
gratuities and pensions, received by Ms. Ocampo only P2,688,636.23 is
allowable. In fine, this Commission affirms the disallowance up to the
amount of P1,449,450.48.
Accordingly, the monthly pension that [Ocampo] should receive
shall only correspond to one monthly pension based on the
computation of her last retirement benefit.
The Auditor concerned is hereby ordered to require the
adjustment in the books of accounts of the agency as regards the
payment of the first lump sum gratuity. 11

In its Decision No. 2009-038 dated 1 June 2009, COA denied Ocampo's
motion for reconsideration and affirmed the disallowance of the amount of
P1,449,450.48 and of the double monthly for Ocampo.
Hence, this petition for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion by the
COA.

The singular issue for our resolution is framed by Ocampo:

WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT COA ERRED IN RULING THAT
PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE ONLY THE BENEFITS
CORRESPONDING TO HER RETIREMENT AS ERB CHAIR, AND THE
PERIOD DURING WHICH SHE SERVED AS MEMBER OF THE SAID
BOARD SHOULD BE MERELY TACKED IN TO THE PERIOD DURING
WHICH SHE SERVED AS SUCH CHAIR. 12

In sum, Ocampo posits that she should be separately paid retirement

benefits for her respective terms as Board Member and Chairperson of the ERB.
In other words, Ocampo claims two (2) lump sum payments, and payment
thereafter of two (2) monthly pensions.
While Ocampo accedes that the "rule is against a retiree's receiving
double pension," she claims exemption to the application thereof because of
the absence of a prohibition, whether express or implied, in Executive Order
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 No. 172 or Republic Act No. 3595 "for a covered official to retire twice
thereunder and receive the corresponding benefits each time." Ocampo
stresses that the applicable laws, Executive Order No. 172 and Republic Act No.
3595, were intended specifically to accord special privileges to covered
government officials who are considered, for retirement purposes, on the same
level as Members of Constitutional Commissions; and the "very enactment [of
these laws] are unequivocal expressions of the intention to remove the covered
officials from the operation of the general rule." Thus, a liberal interpretation
thereof must follow.

The Office of the Solicitor General, in its Comment, ostensibly defending

COA's stance, concluded that:
Hence, [Ocampo] is entitled only to a pro-rata amount on her
retirement gratuity to be computed based on her two (2) years, eleven
(11) months and twenty (20) days actual creditable service as
Chairman of ERB considering that she cannot anymore tack her
previous stint as member of the Board of the ERB since her retirement
benefits were already awarded to her. 13

In her Reply, Ocampo counters that:

1. With due respect, the Comment of the OSG in behalf of
COA did not fully support the COA Decision dated February
15, 2008 and Resolution dated June 1, 2009.
1.1 . . . [T]he OSG Comment argued that "[Ocampo] is
entitled only to a pro-rata amount of her retirement gratuity to be
computed based on her two (2) years, eleven (11) months, and twenty
(20) days actual creditable service as Chairman of ERB . . . ." This is
contrary to the COA Decision dated February 15, 2008 being
questioned which ruled that "[Ocampo] should have received only pro-
rata amount on her retirement gratuity to be computed based on two
years and four months actual creditable service as Board Member of
the ERB. Likewise [Ocampo] is entitled to a pro-rata retirement gratuity
as ERB chairman, based on two years, eleven months, and twenty days
of service as ERB Chairman."

1.2 . . . [T]he OSG . . ., posits that [Ocampo], after legally

receiving the first gratuity pay equivalent to a lump sum of five years
as Board member III of ERB in the total amount of Php1,784,040.00, is
also entitled to a pro-rata computation of her retirement gratuity as
ERB Chairman equivalent to two years, eleven months, and twenty
days in the amount of Php1,452,613.71. However, the COA's Decision
subject of this case ruled that [Ocampo] is entitled to the pro-rata
computation of her retirement BOTH as ERB Board Member III and as
ERB Chairman for a total of five (5) years, three (3) months, and 20
days in the total amount of Php2,688,636.23 only.
1.3 . . . This is significant because in the COA Decision,
[Ocampo] is being required to refund the amount of Php1,449,450.48
while in the OSG position before this Honorable Court, [Ocampo] will
not refund any amount. . . . . 14 (Emphasis theirs).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 Considering the foregoing asseverations, we list the following issues for
our resolution:
1. Whether Ocampo is entitled to a second lump sum retirement
gratuity as ERB Chairperson under Executive Order No. 172, given that she had
already received in full, as admitted by Ocampo herself, a five year lump sum
retirement gratuity as ERB Board Member;
2. Corollary thereto, whether Ocampo is entitled to double monthly
pensions as part of her two retirement gratuities for having held the positions
of ERB Board Member and Chairperson, respectively.
To obviate confusion, we state at the outset that the parties make no
issue of Ocampo's second retirement as a consequence of the abolition of the
ERB and its replacement by the ERC. The issues for our resolution relate only to
Ocampo's retirement benefits in the two instances of her retirement from the
ERB.

For easy reference, a recital of the applicable laws:

1. Section 1, paragraphs 2 and 6 of Executive Order No. 172.
[2]The term of office of the Chairman and the Board
Members shall be four (4) years, but the first Chairman to
be appointed shall hold office for four (4) years, and of
the first four (4) Members, two (2) shall hold office for a
term of two (2) years, and two (2) shall hold office for a
term of three (3) years. No person may be appointed to
serve more than two (2) successive terms in the Board.

xxx xxx xxx

[6]The Chairman and the Members of the Board, upon
completion of their terms or upon becoming eligible for
retirement under existing laws shall be entitled to the
same retirement benefits and privileges provided for the
Chairman and Members of the Commission on Elections.

2. Section 1 of Republic Act No. 3595.

Section 1.When the Auditor General or the Chairman or
any Member of the Commission on Elections retires from
the service for having completed his term [of] office or by
reason of his incapacity to discharge the duties of his
office, or dies while in the service, or resigns at any time
after reaching the age of sixty years but before the
expiration of [his] term of office, he or his heirs shall be
paid in lump sum his salary for one year, not exceeding
five years, for every year of service based upon the last
annual salary that he was receiving at the time of
retirement, incapacity, death or resignation, as the case
may be; Provided, That in case of resignation, he has
rendered not less than twenty years of service in the
government: And, provided, further, That he shall receive
an annuity payable monthly during the residue of his
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 natural life equivalent to the amount of monthly salary he
was receiving on the date of retirement, incapacity or
resignation.

3. Item No. 4, Administrative Order No. 444.

4. Upon retirement, the lump sum of five years'
gratuity as provided under R.A. 3595 for the
Chairman/Commissioner of a Constitutional Commission
shall be computed on the basis of the highest monthly
salary plus the duly authorized transportation, living and
representation allowances in the last month prior to
retirement or expiration of term. 15

Textually, the rules on the retirement benefits under Executive Order No.
172, in relation to Republic Act No. 3595, are:

1. The employee must have completed his term of office, or become

incapacitated to discharge the duties of his office, or dies while in the service,
or resigns at any time after reaching the age of sixty years but before the
expiration of his term of office;
2. The lump sum is to be paid out according to the employee's number
of years of service with the ERB;

3. The lump sum gratuity to be paid is the employee's salary for one
year, not to exceed five years; 16

4. The lump sum is based on the employee's last annual salary that he
was receiving at the time of retirement, incapacity, death or resignation, as the
case may be;

5. In case of resignation, the employee should have rendered not less

than twenty years of service in the government; and,

6. The employee shall receive an annuity payable monthly during the

residue of his natural life equivalent to the amount of monthly salary he was
receiving on the date of retirement, incapacity or resignation.
In affirming ND No. 2003-021 dated 3 September 2003, the COA ruled
that: (1) the phrase "for every year of service" limits the payment of the lump
sum to the employee's length of service and does not automatically entitle an
employee to a lump sum gratuity of five years; (2) Ocampo is not entitled to
two (2) lump sum benefit of five years for each term as it would run counter to
the "common-sense principle" laid down in jurisprudence; (3) payment to
Ocampo of two retirement benefits under Executive Order No. 172 for both her
retirements, albeit under different positions and offices, is unconstitutional as it
violates the provision against additional or double compensation; and (4)
ultimately, Ocampo should have received only a pro-rated amount on her
retirement gratuity based on her two years and four months as ERB Board
Member, and two years, eleven months and twenty days as ERB Chairperson.

We note that, while COA's decisions did not state whether Ocampo, for
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 her first retirement gratuity, received the maximum lump sum benefit of five
years which an employee may receive, Ocampo asseverated in her Reply, and
the records of this case categorically show that for her retirement as ERB Board
Member, she received the maximum lump sum benefit of five years although
her actual creditable service for that position and period is less than five (5)
years, i.e., two years and four months. This has already been paid to, and
received by Ocampo, and has never been the subject of any audit or
disallowance by the COA prior to Ocampo's claim for a second retirement
benefit as ERB Chairperson.

Ocampo is surprised, therefore, that her first retirement gratuity, which

she had long received, was audited by the COA. In short, Ocampo argues that
the foregoing expenditure is not the proper subject of COA's jurisdiction, as
COA should confine itself to its disallowance of Ocampo's second retirement
gratuity in the amount of P1,452,613.71 computed on a pro-rated basis
equivalent to Ocampo's length of service as ERB Chairperson for two years,
eleven months and twenty days.

In fact, in the dispositive portion of COA's Decision 2008-017, COA's pro-

rated computation of Ocampo's first and second retirement benefits as ERB
Board Member and Chairperson, respectively, exceeded the five-year limit set
forth in the law. The pro-rated computation of COA of Ocampo's retirement
benefits corresponded to Ocampo's total period of employment as both ERB
Board Member and Chairperson for five (5) years, three (3) months, and twenty
(20) days, in the total amount of P2,688,636.23. Thus, in the Decisions 2008-
017 and 2009-038, COA affirmed the disallowance of P1,449,450.48. COA noted
that Ocampo had already received the total amount of P4,138,086.71 as
retirement benefits, and ordered the Auditor concerned to adjust the books of
accounts of the agency respecting the payment of the first lump sum gratuity.
First. We disagree with Ocampo that COA should not have audited the
first retirement benefit paid to Ocampo as ERB Board Member. COA's plenary
authority, consisting of pre and post audit, is enshrined in the Constitution, 17
and as oft observed in jurisprudence. 18 COA validly looked into the government
expenditure relating to the first retirement benefit paid to Ocampo because she
now claims payment of a second retirement benefit under the same law. Part of
the scope of the COA's power, authority and duty is to "promulgate accounting
and auditing rules, and regulations including those for the prevention and
disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or
unconscionable expenditures, or uses of government funds and properties."
Second. Before examining the correctness of the COA audit, however, it is
imperative to ascertain first, in view of the circumstances herein obtaining, as
to how much Ocampo is entitled to receive as retirement benefits under
Executive Order No. 172 in relation to Republic Act No. 1568 as amended by
Republic Act No. 3595. We can recall that Ocampo retired twice from the ERB
under the following circumstances:

a. Ocampo first retired from the ERB on 30 June 1998, after

serving a total of two (2) years and four (4) months as a
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 member thereof (first retirement).
b. After her first retirement, Ocampo was re-appointed to the
ERB, this time, as its chairman on 25 August 1998.
c. Ocampo retired once again from the ERB on 15 August 2001,
after serving a total of two (2) years, eleven (11) months and
twenty (20) days as chairman thereof (second retirement).
Owing to her two retirements from the ERB, Ocampo now claims that she
is likewise entitled to two (2) sets of retirement benefits under Executive Order
No. 172 in relation to Republic Act No. 1568 as amended by Republic Act No.
3595.

We disagree.
Claim of Ocampo for Two Sets of
Retirement Benefits Not a Claim
of Double Compensation
At the outset, it must be clarified that the claim of Ocampo for two (2)
sets of retirement benefits under Republic Act No. 1568 is not, strictly
speaking, a claim for double compensation prohibited under the first paragraph
of Section 8, Article IX-B of the Constitution. Claims for double retirement
benefits fall under the prohibition against the receipt of double compensation
when they are based on exactly the same services and on the same creditable
period. 19 This is not, however, the case herein.
In this case, Ocampo is not claiming two (2) sets of retirement benefits for
one and the same creditable period. Rather, Ocampo is claiming a set of
retirement benefits for each of her two (2) retirements from the ERB. In other
words, each set of retirement benefits claimed by Ocampo is based on distinct
creditable periods i.e., one for her term as member of the ERB and another for
her term as chairman of the same agency.
What Ocampo is merely claiming, therefore, is that she is entitled to two
(2) sets of retirement benefits for her two (2) retirements from the ERB under
Republic Act No. 1568, as amended. Hence, in order to resolve her claim, what
is only required is an interpretation of Republic Act No. 1568, as amended.
Republic Act No. 1568 as
Amended Does Not Justify
Payment of More than One
Gratuity and Annuity as a
Consequence of Several
Retirements from the Same
Agency
As can be seen from our discussion above, the success of Ocampo's claim
actually depends on the existence of a provision in Republic Act No. 1568 that
allows her to recover two (2) set of retirement benefits as a consequence of her
two (2) retirements from the ERB. Ocampo hinges her claim for two (2) sets of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 retirement benefits solely on the provisions of Republic Act No. 1568 as
amended by Republic Act No. 3595.

We rule against her.

There is nothing in Republic Act No. 1568 as amended by Republic Act
No. 3595 that allows a qualified retiree to therein recover two (2) sets of
retirement benefits as a consequence of two (2) retirements from the same
covered agency. As worded, Republic Act No. 1568, as amended, only allows
payment of only a single gratuity and a single annuity out of a single
compensable retirement from any one of the covered agencies.
In fact, the contingency of multiple retirements from the same covered
agency could not have been contemplated by the law. We can confirm this if we
take into consideration that Republic Act No. 1568 is a law that, first and
foremost, was intended to cover the retirement benefits of the chairmen and
members of the COA (formerly the Office of the Auditor General) and of the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) 20 and that it has been the consistent
policy of the State, indeed since the 1935 Constitution, to prohibit any
appointment of more than one term in the said constitutional bodies. Hence,
Republic Act No. 1568, as it was passed and in its present form, cannot be said
to have sanctioned the payment of more than one set of retirement benefits to
a retiree as a consequence of multiple retirements in one agency.
The mere circumstance that members and chairmen of the ERB may be
appointed to serve therein for more than one term (but not for two consecutive
terms) 21 does not mean that they would be entitled a set of retirement
benefits under Republic Act No. 1568 for each of their completed term. Section
1 of Executive Order No. 172 merely extends to members and chairmen of the
ERB similar retirement benefits that retiring members and chairmen of the COA
and COMELEC are entitled to under the law. Similar does not mean greater.
Since Republic Act No. 1568, as amended by Republic Act No. 3595
clearly does not justify the payment of more than one gratuity and one annuity
to a qualified retiree, Ocampo cannot claim two (2) sets of retirement benefits
under the same law.

How Much Ocampo is Entitled to

Recover As Retirement Benefits
Having settled that Ocampo is only entitled to receive only one set of
retirement benefits under Republic Act No. 1568 as amended, We now
proceed to the determination of how much Ocampo is entitled to receive as
retirement benefits under the same law.

Section 1 of Republic Act No. 1568 grants two (2) types of retirement
benefits to a qualified retiree, i.e., a gratuity or a lump sum payment and an
annuity or monthly pension, viz.:
Section 1.When the Auditor General or the Chairman or any
Member of the Commission on Elections retires from the service for
having completed his term or office or by reason of his incapacity
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 to discharge the duties of his office, or dies while in the service, or
resigns at any time after reaching the age of sixty years but before the
expiration of this term of office, he or his heirs shall be paid in
lump sum his salary for one year, not exceeding five years, for
every year of service based upon the last annual salary that he
was receiving at the time of retirement, incapacity, death or
resignation, as the case may be: Provided, That in case of resignation,
he has rendered not less than twenty years of service in the
government; And, provided, further, That he shall receive an
annuity payable monthly during the residue of his natural life
equivalent to the amount of monthly salary he was receiving
on the date of retirement, incapacity or resignation. (Emphasis
supplied).

Applying the above provision, We discern that Ocampo may recover one
gratuity in an amount equivalent to her last annual salary multiplied by her
actual years of service in the ERB but not to exceed five (5) years. In
addition, Ocampo is entitled to receive only one annuity equivalent to the
amount of her last monthly salary.

While Ocampo is entitled to receive only one set of retirement benefits

under Republic Act No. 1568, as amended, despite her two (2) retirements, We
believe that her subsequent stint as Chairman of the ERB and her
consequent second retirement necessitated an adjustment of the
retirement benefits she is entitled to under the law. This is because
Republic Act No. 1568, as amended, reckons the amount of gratuity on the
retiree's last annual salary and actual years of service not exceeding five
(5) years, and it bases the amount of annuity on the retiree's last monthly
salary.

Hence, for purposes of computing her gratuity, Ocampo's last annual

salary shall be that which she was receiving at the time of her second
retirement and her actual years of service shall be the sum of her years of
service both as ERB member and chairman, but not to exceed five (5) years.
On the other hand, for purposes of computing her annuity, Ocampo's last
monthly salary shall be that which she was receiving monthly as of the date of
her second retirement.

Third. We now come to COA's findings. As can be seen from the factual
narration, the disallowance made by the COA with respect to some of the
retirement benefits already received by Ocampo rests on a different premise
than that We have settled in the previous discussions. Hence, for the sake of
accuracy, We require a remand of this case to the COA with the following
directives:

1. To recompute the gratuity and annuity of Ocampo in

accordance with the principles enunciated in this Decision;
2. To require the adjustment of Ocampo's account to reflect
such recomputed gratuity and annuity;

3. To compare such recomputed gratuity and annuity with the

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 gratuity and annuity already received by Ocampo so far; and,

a. In the event that the recomputed gratuity or annuity is

greater than the gratuity or annuity already received by
Ocampo, to allow the payment to Ocampo of only the
excess,

b. In the event that the recomputed gratuity or annuity is

lesser than the gratuity or annuity already received by
Ocampo, to disallow the excess payments to Ocampo
and require the refund thereof.
It is in this light that We are constrained to grant this petition.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. This case

is remanded to the Commission on Audit with the following directives:

1. To recompute the gratuity and annuity of Ocampo in

accordance with the principles enunciated in this Decision;
2. To require the adjustment of Ocampo's account to reflect
such recomputed gratuity and annuity;

3. To compare such recomputed gratuity and annuity with the

gratuity and annuity already received by Ocampo so far; and,
a. In the event that the recomputed gratuity or annuity is
greater than the gratuity or annuity already received by
Ocampo, to allow the payment to Ocampo of only the
excess,

b. In the event that the recomputed gratuity or annuity is

lesser than the gratuity or annuity already received by
Ocampo, to disallow the excess payments to Ocampo
and require the refund thereof.

SO ORDERED.

Sereno, C.J., Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-de Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin,

Del Castillo, Abad, Villarama, Jr., Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe and Leonen,
JJ., concur.
Carpio, * J., is on official leave.

Footnotes

*On Official Leave under the Court's Wellness Program.

1.Rollo, pp. 17-23.

2.Id. at 24-25.

3.Otherwise known as the Government Insurance Act.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 4.An Act further Amending Section 12 of Commonwealth Act Number One Hundred
Eighty-Six, as amended, by prescribing the other modes of retirement and for
other purposes.
5.Rollo, pp. 99-100.

6.Id. at 98.

7.Id. at 26.
8.Id. at 27.

9.Id. at 29.
10.Id. at 31-34.

11.Id. at 21-22.

12.Id. at 7.
13.Id. at 89.

14.Id. at 97-98.
15.Id. at 20.

16.Emphasis supplied.

17.ART. IX-D, Section 2.

  1. The Commission on Audit shall have the power, authority, and duty to
examine, audit, and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenue and
receipts of, and expenditures or uses of funds and property, owned or held in
trust by, or pertaining to, the Government, or any of its subdivisions,
agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled
corporations with original charters, and on a post-audit basis:
  a. constitutional bodies, commissions and offices that have been granted
fiscal autonomy under this Constitution;

  b. autonomous state colleges and universities;

  c. other government-owned or controlled corporations with original
charters and their subsidiaries; and

  d. such non-governmental entities receiving subsidy or equity, directly or

indirectly, from or through the Government, which are required by law or the
granting institution to submit to such audit as a condition of subsidy or
equity. However, where the internal control system of the audited agencies is
inadequate, the Commission may adopt such measures, including temporary
or special pre-audit, as are necessary and appropriate to correct the
deficiencies. It shall keep the general accounts of the Government and, for
such period as may be provided by law, preserve the vouchers and other
supporting papers pertaining thereto.
  2. The Commission shall have exclusive authority, subject to the
limitations in this Article, to define the scope of its audit and examination,
establish the techniques and methods required therefor, and promulgate
accounting and auditing rules, and regulations including those for the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 prevention and disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive,
extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures, or uses of government funds
and properties.

18.Development Bank of the Philippines v. Ballesteros, 531 Phil. 677 (2006); Euro-
Med Laboratories Phil., Inc. v. Province of Batangas, 527 Phil. 623 (2006).
19.See Santos v. Court of Appeals, 399 Phil. 298, 307-308 (2000).

20.Originally, Republic Act No. 1568 only covers retirement benefits of chairmen
and members of the Commission on Audit (formerly the Office of the Auditor
General) and the Commission on Elections. Presidential Decree No. 1582,
however, extended the coverage of Republic Act No. 1568 to members of the
Civil Service Commission.

21.Section 1 of Executive Order No. 172.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com